Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL unit tests

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL unit tests
Date: 2006-02-23 02:10:28
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Treat wrote:

> You could check into what spikesource has been doing.  I believe they mostly 
> just piggyback off of our regression tests for postgresql core, but there 
> might still be something that could be built upon.  If you look at this url 
> the actual success information isnt terribly exciting but the "code coverage" 
> url shows something of more interest. There is more stuff if you dig around a 
> bit. 

This can't be right.  The report for function coverage shows 100% for
all utf8_and_*.c files, at the end of the listing.  Notice how "C/D
coverage" (I don't know what it means but I assume it's somehow computed
per lines of code or something) is 0, which is probably the correct
result, because our regression tests do not test charset conversions at

I think the bug may be that they use function names to see what is
actually tested ...

IIRC Gavin Sherry gave a URL to a test coverage result some centuries
ago.  The only thing that I remember about the result was that it was
surprinsingly low (IMHO at least).

Alvaro Herrera                      
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2006-02-23 02:40:06
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL unit tests
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-02-23 00:22:17
Subject: Re: Attempting upgrade path; is this possible?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group